Showing posts with label Iginla. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iginla. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Boston Montreal Game #3: Early Goals Bury Bruins This Time
Date: 06/05/2014
Opponent: Bruins
Location: Montreal
Win: 4-2
Habs Goalie: Price (W)
Opposition Goalie: Rask (L)
Habs goalscorers: Plekanec, Subban, Weise, Eller
Opposition goalscorers: Bergeron, Iginla
Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Trade 2013 Winners So Far
The Montreal Canadiens are still in the running for the biggest impact trade of 2013.
It wasn't the one yesterday, though if you'd told me in mid-slumber that they got that guy Drew-something from LA for picks, I might have thought otherwise. The trade that still stands is the one that brought in Michael Ryder for a second go-around with his goal every other game and 14 points in 15.
And it shouldn't surprise that a classic player for player trade be in the running for such a nod. One has to give a lot to get a lot. And Erik Cole was a lot.
It wasn't the one yesterday, though if you'd told me in mid-slumber that they got that guy Drew-something from LA for picks, I might have thought otherwise. The trade that still stands is the one that brought in Michael Ryder for a second go-around with his goal every other game and 14 points in 15.
And it shouldn't surprise that a classic player for player trade be in the running for such a nod. One has to give a lot to get a lot. And Erik Cole was a lot.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Game #3
Not The Bell Centre Start That Was Envisioned
Details
Date: 13/10/2011
Opponent: Flames
Location: Montreal
Loss: 1-4
Habs Goalie: Price (L)
Opposition Goalie: Kiprusoff (W)
Habs goalscorers: Kostitsyn
Opposition goalscorers: Bourque (2), Hagman, Moss
Play of the game
We had some good chances throughout the game, but all lacked conviction, save one. That was our first real chance, the one that gave us our only lead of the night. A 2-on-1 shaped up with Pacioretty on the left and Kostitsyn on the right. Max waited, faked the pass and then shot. He missed the net to Kipper's right and it came right out to Andrei who essentially had an easy shot to make (although it took incedibly fast reflexes to pull it off). At first I thought that it was an accident that Max missed the net, but after watching the whole game I need some positive reinforcement, so, of course, he meant to do that.
Dome hockey team
The 6 players we're playing in a no changes, do or die contest in the domeForwards
Tomas Plekanec - Game Puck
I liked how Tom tried very hard during the whole game. He was at the centre of a lot of our chances and he could have easily picked up a point or two. He has been our best forward so far and I think that he'll be required to keep it up so long as Cole, Gionta and Gomez remain quiet and Camms is on the shelf.
Lars Eller
I didn't know what to expect from Lars after such a long lay-off, but must say that I was pleasantly surprised. He started the game on the 4th line, but quickly proved that he has a place on the top 3. He was creative with the puck and showed an offensive flare that was was starting to be displayed towards the end of last year.
Andrei Kostitsyn
Kostitsyn started the game well with a goal and kept up the good play for most of the night. He was used with a few different people tonight as Martin looked for something. I am not sure where he will settle, but if half of the top-6 is absent (literally or figuratively) over the next little while there will be a serious opportunity, as there is every year, for some big minutes and big assignments.
Defencemen
Josh Gorges
It seems that we can't count on too much steady play from our D this year, but if there is one player who seems like a sure bet back there it is Josh. Tonight he was the best of the group and managed to stay out of any real trouble. There were a couple of goals on the PK while he was on, but those can't really be attributed to him. No, instead I'll remember the 5 blocked-shots and solid even-strength play.
Alexei Emelin
Weber, Gill and Subban made this an easy choice, a choice between Diaz and Emelin. I liked Alexei better on this night because I felt that he was getting involved more and seemed more comfortable than in Winnipeg. I think of the two he will be the better player and tonight he was. He joined rushes, made good breakout passes and used his body as we all knew he could.
Goaltender
Peter Budaj
The first slip of Carey's season happened on a night that the team in front of him let him down anyway. Price didn't cost us this game, the whole team did, but he certainly wasn't at his best. He did look pretty ordinary on most of the goals, though, as usually he saves 2, maybe 3 of those. Also, his stick-handling was casual and at times dangerous/bad. This is a game to forget for the kid because no one doubts that he can be better, almost all of the time.
Comments
A big win in Winnipeg and an early goal tonight had me really thinking that we were ready to go places this season. The loss hasn't completely dispelled those thoughts, but I am left wondering a few things that I had been taking for granted since Sunday. First and foremost, our passing was bad, bad enough that good chances were flat-out lost because of it. Secondly our defensive zone coverage was pretty poor. From our wingers to our D we had too many break-downs, too many give-aways. Lastly, why so many penalties? Why do we have to be that team again? Taking penalties with the frequency that we have been taking them is one of the dumbest things you can do in this league. We know this, the coaches and players know this, yet it continues. These are three basic issues that should be worked out in September, but now must be worked out, in a hurry. We have the skill and talent to beat a team like Calgary, but as long as we play a sloppy, careless game we will be beaten by pretty much all of the teams.
Help is not on the way, this is our squad. It isn't ideal, but it is what we have to work with. The coaches should be working overtime to make sure that we are using the right combination, the right personnel on special-units and the right tactics. Tonight, we did not look great and you won't win many games when that is the case. Colorado isn't a bad team, but they aren't a great team either. Let's see what we can change by Saturday and hope that the Habs will be more responsible and careful in all aspects of play starting in 48 hours.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Summer's For Fiction
Habs Trade Rumours Of Late
I do my best to ignore the rumours as they roll by. I mean are we honestly going down the Patrick Marleau road again for the 5th consecutive summer? You expect it from Eklund, he needs the readers; but for everyone to join in is a bit disappointing.
The hook for most rumours nowadays seems to be their perceived achievability. Are they realistic? This includes the salary exchange, of course. But added to the mix (and a favourite of the Hockeybuzz randomizer) is connections from the past.
When Saku Koivu was here, one consistent rumour from the guys who generate these "realistic" rumours was Teemu Selanne. Now that someone from Montreal has actually spoken to Teemu we know that Saku asked and he balked immediately – a question of enjoying California sunshine just that much. Bob Gainey GM, Guy Carbonneau father-in-law – it was only a matter of time back in the day before Brenden Morrow was added to the Habs. Big and cousin to Carey Price? That's two reasons Shane Doan always popped up. Don't forget anyone who can speak French with a contract running out – there's a whole other boatload of potential trade targets.
The trend of the summer seems to be that we will reunite any combination that our new free agents have ever successfully undertaken. Gainey, to be fair, has encouraged this kind of activity by signing Brian Gionta after he made the Scott Gomez deal. So the rumour-makers go to work. Cammalleri had a good year in LA, so naturally Frolov should be here too. Gomez and Gionta played well with Patrik Elias, so naturally Gainey must be pursuing him as well.
It's nonsense, of course. The stuff of August.
Why do trades that "make so much sense" so rarely happen?
Well one very good reason is that trades in general so very rarely happen. Now I'm not sure that they ever did really. I think what seems to make them so scarce nowadays is the simple fact that thanks to certain very imaginative internet users, about 5 or 6 are rumoured every single day. And when you look at interesting trades over the year, you'd be lucky to list 5 or 6 – that's a whole lot of unfulfilled dreams.
Honestly, though, I think the reason a lot of trades that "make sense" don't happen is because most of the time, they don't make any sense at all. Yes, Patrick Marleau for Halak makes sense in a one-eyed Canadiens kind of way, but for the Sharks? Throwing in salary doesn't help either, because it's rare that desirable asset and salary to shed fall on the same list for the trade partner.
Take the latest rumours. The trades for Elias and Frolov don't make as much sense to the teams reported to be shipping as they might for Montreal. For instance, there is good reason that Elias is the player from that line left in New Jersey from that line and Frolov is the one lingering in LA. There was reason to why those GMs made the choice to keep those two players ahead of their linemate(s). When you consider New Jersey, it would probably not be far-fetched to say that Elias has been the engine behind the offense there for a decade. Compared to Elias, Gomez was a blip on the radar. In LA, Frolov came first as well. A biggish winger who scores 25-30 goals like clockwork, it's easy to see why another team would covet him. Also easy to see why LA would not part ways with the guy.
Do these trades even make sense for Montreal?
It's all well and good to look down a roster and pick out players that played together (do we know that anyway, do we remember?) and come up with a story about the times they had together. It's quite another to substantiate those stories. It occurred to me that not only were these trades not the stuff of dreams for Lamoriello and Lombardi, but also that Gainey might not be getting the incredible boost that everyone assumes that would come from the moves.
If Luckily, there are resources available courtesy of the tireless stats crunchers who live in our computers to verify the hypothesis. We can have a look at how the partnerships we're supposedly working around the clock to reunite actually fared in the past. So that we can take our one eyed view if we want, yet make it an analytical eye.
Cammalleri – Frolov
In 2006-07, Cammalleri and Frolov did play together at even strength, but they weren't joined at the hip. They shared the ice for 481:33 minutes. Cammalleri played 564:49 without Frolov and Frolov played 637:35 withou Mike – so both played more without the other than with.
Interestingly, their partnership did seem to make both players more productive as they produced 28 goals when on ice together for a a rate of 1.163 a period. Cammalleri sans Frolov gave only 1.062 G/20 and Frolov sans Cammalleri 0.784 G/20. In case you're wondering Mike also made Alex a slightly better defensive bet, but Alex made Mike more of a liability.
But the duo didn't stop compiling evidence in April 2007. They did play another year together – and this is where it gets interesting. It seems that in 2007-08 (at least at ES), Mike and Alex were not primary linemates. Perhaps due to injuries and the resulting discovery of new combinations, perhaps due to coaching preference. Cammalleri in that season spent more time with Dustin Brown and Anze Kopitar. Of his 1060 or so minutes of ice time, he spent less than a third with Frolov. And contrary to the season prior, 2007-08 was not a data set to suggest that the two were the second coming of Gretzky and Kurri. Offensively, both players were quite a bit better apart. Where together they popped out 0.846 goals a period, apart Cammalleri was good for 0.908 and Frolov for a whopping 1.237. Defensively, Mike was ever so slightly better with Frolov whereas Alex was again worse off.
If I'm Alexander Frolov, then, where's my burning desire to return to Cammalleri's side? I'm pretty happy with what I can do on my own. If I'm Cammalleri, I've shown I can be even better with Iginla – please get me Iginla.
Elias – Gomez – Gionta
At the very least, the rumour-makers got the line right. Back in 2006-07 (first year of data, last year for the line), the favourite linemates for each player came from the threesome – and they spent in the neighbourhood of two thirds of their even strength playing time together. And they were a good line on a good team. It wouldn't be a massive mistake to reunite them.
But really, who made who better? Well offensively it goes like this. Gomez made both Elias (1.143 vs. 0.453 G/20) and Gionta (1.022 vs. 0.281 G/20) a lot better producers at even strength. Elias helped Gomez a little (1.143 vs. 0.820 G/20) but not Gionta at all (0.828 vs. 0.841 G/20). And Gionta seemed to be leeching off the line because both Gomez (1.022 vs. 1.016 G/20) and Elias (0.828 vs. 0.927 G/20) were at least as good if not slightly better without his small frame around.
The next two seasons give us more fodder on the Elias front. In 2007-08, Elias dragged Gionta along again, but once again Gionta was not into symbiosis, preferring his parasitic ways. Last seasonsaw them together again, but like an old tired couple – neither really sparking the other anymore. Both seemed resigned just to plod on as they would. Importantly though, from Elias' point of view (and Lamoriello's), Patrik is still cruising along and steadily challenging the goal for every 20 minutes of play standard. He has also taken to playing with Zach Parise when possible, it seems, with massive boosts in production for both when they grace the same surface.
So if Elias were to be targeted, it would make sense to partner him with Gomez, but also to distance him from Gionta – so it would mean banishment for Brian from the centre he signed on for, hardly a very good strategy to welcome your new 5-year signing. From NJ's point of view, Elias is a leader and a very reliable offensive player who also happens to click with their new superstar forward. Not much incentive in the trade for them really. Not unless the trade includes someone named Andrei Markov.
In all honesty, if Gainey was as fixated on combination boosts as people are making out, it would be a better tack to go after Robert Lang who actually did potentiate two players on the team by quite a handsome margin (Andrei and Sergei Kostitsyn) – all the more relevant, being that it happened in Montreal.
Both would obviously be great additions in Montreal as two of the top left wingers in the league. But considering salary, the current roster players, price to pay in a trade and the fact the combinations wouldn't bring quite the Midas touch the Eklunds of the world sell, it seems both are a massive stretch in the end – a bit of summertime fiction for the beach (and that goes for both the one-eyed or two-eyed onlooker).
The hook for most rumours nowadays seems to be their perceived achievability. Are they realistic? This includes the salary exchange, of course. But added to the mix (and a favourite of the Hockeybuzz randomizer) is connections from the past.
When Saku Koivu was here, one consistent rumour from the guys who generate these "realistic" rumours was Teemu Selanne. Now that someone from Montreal has actually spoken to Teemu we know that Saku asked and he balked immediately – a question of enjoying California sunshine just that much. Bob Gainey GM, Guy Carbonneau father-in-law – it was only a matter of time back in the day before Brenden Morrow was added to the Habs. Big and cousin to Carey Price? That's two reasons Shane Doan always popped up. Don't forget anyone who can speak French with a contract running out – there's a whole other boatload of potential trade targets.
The trend of the summer seems to be that we will reunite any combination that our new free agents have ever successfully undertaken. Gainey, to be fair, has encouraged this kind of activity by signing Brian Gionta after he made the Scott Gomez deal. So the rumour-makers go to work. Cammalleri had a good year in LA, so naturally Frolov should be here too. Gomez and Gionta played well with Patrik Elias, so naturally Gainey must be pursuing him as well.
It's nonsense, of course. The stuff of August.
Why do trades that "make so much sense" so rarely happen?
Well one very good reason is that trades in general so very rarely happen. Now I'm not sure that they ever did really. I think what seems to make them so scarce nowadays is the simple fact that thanks to certain very imaginative internet users, about 5 or 6 are rumoured every single day. And when you look at interesting trades over the year, you'd be lucky to list 5 or 6 – that's a whole lot of unfulfilled dreams.
Honestly, though, I think the reason a lot of trades that "make sense" don't happen is because most of the time, they don't make any sense at all. Yes, Patrick Marleau for Halak makes sense in a one-eyed Canadiens kind of way, but for the Sharks? Throwing in salary doesn't help either, because it's rare that desirable asset and salary to shed fall on the same list for the trade partner.
Take the latest rumours. The trades for Elias and Frolov don't make as much sense to the teams reported to be shipping as they might for Montreal. For instance, there is good reason that Elias is the player from that line left in New Jersey from that line and Frolov is the one lingering in LA. There was reason to why those GMs made the choice to keep those two players ahead of their linemate(s). When you consider New Jersey, it would probably not be far-fetched to say that Elias has been the engine behind the offense there for a decade. Compared to Elias, Gomez was a blip on the radar. In LA, Frolov came first as well. A biggish winger who scores 25-30 goals like clockwork, it's easy to see why another team would covet him. Also easy to see why LA would not part ways with the guy.
Do these trades even make sense for Montreal?
It's all well and good to look down a roster and pick out players that played together (do we know that anyway, do we remember?) and come up with a story about the times they had together. It's quite another to substantiate those stories. It occurred to me that not only were these trades not the stuff of dreams for Lamoriello and Lombardi, but also that Gainey might not be getting the incredible boost that everyone assumes that would come from the moves.
If Luckily, there are resources available courtesy of the tireless stats crunchers who live in our computers to verify the hypothesis. We can have a look at how the partnerships we're supposedly working around the clock to reunite actually fared in the past. So that we can take our one eyed view if we want, yet make it an analytical eye.
Cammalleri – Frolov
In 2006-07, Cammalleri and Frolov did play together at even strength, but they weren't joined at the hip. They shared the ice for 481:33 minutes. Cammalleri played 564:49 without Frolov and Frolov played 637:35 withou Mike – so both played more without the other than with.
Interestingly, their partnership did seem to make both players more productive as they produced 28 goals when on ice together for a a rate of 1.163 a period. Cammalleri sans Frolov gave only 1.062 G/20 and Frolov sans Cammalleri 0.784 G/20. In case you're wondering Mike also made Alex a slightly better defensive bet, but Alex made Mike more of a liability.
But the duo didn't stop compiling evidence in April 2007. They did play another year together – and this is where it gets interesting. It seems that in 2007-08 (at least at ES), Mike and Alex were not primary linemates. Perhaps due to injuries and the resulting discovery of new combinations, perhaps due to coaching preference. Cammalleri in that season spent more time with Dustin Brown and Anze Kopitar. Of his 1060 or so minutes of ice time, he spent less than a third with Frolov. And contrary to the season prior, 2007-08 was not a data set to suggest that the two were the second coming of Gretzky and Kurri. Offensively, both players were quite a bit better apart. Where together they popped out 0.846 goals a period, apart Cammalleri was good for 0.908 and Frolov for a whopping 1.237. Defensively, Mike was ever so slightly better with Frolov whereas Alex was again worse off.
If I'm Alexander Frolov, then, where's my burning desire to return to Cammalleri's side? I'm pretty happy with what I can do on my own. If I'm Cammalleri, I've shown I can be even better with Iginla – please get me Iginla.
Elias – Gomez – Gionta
At the very least, the rumour-makers got the line right. Back in 2006-07 (first year of data, last year for the line), the favourite linemates for each player came from the threesome – and they spent in the neighbourhood of two thirds of their even strength playing time together. And they were a good line on a good team. It wouldn't be a massive mistake to reunite them.
But really, who made who better? Well offensively it goes like this. Gomez made both Elias (1.143 vs. 0.453 G/20) and Gionta (1.022 vs. 0.281 G/20) a lot better producers at even strength. Elias helped Gomez a little (1.143 vs. 0.820 G/20) but not Gionta at all (0.828 vs. 0.841 G/20). And Gionta seemed to be leeching off the line because both Gomez (1.022 vs. 1.016 G/20) and Elias (0.828 vs. 0.927 G/20) were at least as good if not slightly better without his small frame around.
The next two seasons give us more fodder on the Elias front. In 2007-08, Elias dragged Gionta along again, but once again Gionta was not into symbiosis, preferring his parasitic ways. Last seasonsaw them together again, but like an old tired couple – neither really sparking the other anymore. Both seemed resigned just to plod on as they would. Importantly though, from Elias' point of view (and Lamoriello's), Patrik is still cruising along and steadily challenging the goal for every 20 minutes of play standard. He has also taken to playing with Zach Parise when possible, it seems, with massive boosts in production for both when they grace the same surface.
So if Elias were to be targeted, it would make sense to partner him with Gomez, but also to distance him from Gionta – so it would mean banishment for Brian from the centre he signed on for, hardly a very good strategy to welcome your new 5-year signing. From NJ's point of view, Elias is a leader and a very reliable offensive player who also happens to click with their new superstar forward. Not much incentive in the trade for them really. Not unless the trade includes someone named Andrei Markov.
In all honesty, if Gainey was as fixated on combination boosts as people are making out, it would be a better tack to go after Robert Lang who actually did potentiate two players on the team by quite a handsome margin (Andrei and Sergei Kostitsyn) – all the more relevant, being that it happened in Montreal.
Both would obviously be great additions in Montreal as two of the top left wingers in the league. But considering salary, the current roster players, price to pay in a trade and the fact the combinations wouldn't bring quite the Midas touch the Eklunds of the world sell, it seems both are a massive stretch in the end – a bit of summertime fiction for the beach (and that goes for both the one-eyed or two-eyed onlooker).
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Alex Tanguay
From Flame To Firewagon
Alex Tanguay didn't score last night, but he might as well have done. He played very well and for the second set of new linemates this season, elevated the whole line's play.
Watching the game in repeat from last night, I really noticed Alex's style and presence. To be fair, I think it took a while for me to appreciate what he can do and how he would go about doing it. I was pretty close to writing a disparaging piece a while ago. But, to watch Tanguay all game is to see patience and quiet peppered with moments of skill and brilliance.
To watch Calgary for the first full game this season was to witness why he wouldn't fit in there. He is a Montreal type player, not a Sutter boy. Here's why.
He floats
See the word float in hockey and negative connotations come flooding to mind. But it shouldn't necessarily be so. In fact, I think that a lot of very well functioning 3-man offensive units can credit some success to having one floater (or lurker) if you prefer.
Tanguay is good at lurking. He seems to know where the puck might pop out and glides into that place. For some observers he looks lazy as Higgins battles for 10 seconds on the boards. Clearly, we can count Sutter and Keenan among those. But to others, the subtlety in his play can be exquisite.
He is dependent
It really is starting to sound a bit negative. I wouldn't go so far as to say he is parisitic, but like a pilot fish hanging around the great white, the relationship sometimes look less than mutual.
What I have seen with Tanguay so far though is that he starts out leeching the puck, but as time goes by and the line becomes familiar, he spreads it back or just plain creates big chances. So while he relies on others to do a lot of the heavy work, he can provide them with the touch and timing they would otherwise lack.
Players dependent on others need independent souls willing to take on luggage. The Canadiens have always had these generous types – Koivu and Kovalev, and now Lang. It does put some onus on a coach to do some thinking about where the dependents go. Clearly that is too much for some coaches...
He is laid back
Or so it seems from his interviews. Laid back is good when being interviewed (particularly in the hockey-media madhouse). I think laid back is good on the ice sometimes too. It's the calm that allows bank shots off goalies to work; to score without effort in shootouts (2 points from those already).
You don't want your on-ice leaders to be too laid back all the time, and you'd pick Iginla in a pinch over Tanguay. But Iginlas are few and far between and trading intensity and leadership by example all the time for scoring and playmaking is great if you can afford the luxury.
Add up all these qualities and it becomes clearer why a straight-ahead coach like Keenan couldn't cope and just wasn't a fan. Keenan and his GM seem to call upon energetic (almost hyperactive) physical play and don't seem to have time for much else. To build a team with that mentality, you need a whole lot of Iginlas, and no Tanguays. The Flames are built with sturdy sorts who energetically come at the opposition wherever they are on the ice. The Flames are coached to press, press, press. The strategy is valid, but it's not Tanguay's.
The Canadiens (of late) seem to be at least trying to model their behaviour after more patient sides, where puck control and possession is valued more than the perfect dump in. They try to create chaos among defenders not through orchestrating chaotic moves of their own, but by patiently waiting for it to happen.
Alex Tanguay just fits this scenario. His patience, control and slick and inconspicuous ways on the ice thrive when fed by similar players like Kovalev, Markov, Kostitsyn and Koivu. Mike Keenan might call it the trap:
All respect to the man gunning for Scotty Bowman's records (he's closest and most likely to get the most losses by an NHL coach – within 60 now – and never reach the wins, as he's nearly 600 back), but I think his catchall thinking is not only derogatory, but not very nuanced either. It is the transition without the trapping, the possession without the blue-line stand.
It wouldn't be the first time Keenan was wrong. We should all be glad that Tanguay was wrong for him, because he is starting to look very right for the rebirth of the firewagon brand.
Aside: 5 Canadiens/Flames links
Yesterday I asked Kent from Five Hole Fanatics and Tobalev from Lions in Winter about 5 names. I wanted to share with you some of my comments on the 5.
a) Rob Ramage
Rob was unique as a member of both the 1989 Calgary Flames and the 1993 Montreal Canadiens. From Kent's and Tobalev's responses, you can gather that Rob's career was on a different plane in 1989, though he still had a moustache in 93.
Rob was a good defenceman with the Flames, and a great one throughout his career. He also has plenty of interesting side notes:
– He was drafted first overall in 1979 ahead of 3 400+ goalscorers and Raymond Bourque
– He put the puck in his own net on Billy Smith's and any goaltender's first NHL goal
– He was an expensive pick-up for Calgary to shore up their D, costing them Steve Bozek and an out of favour youngster called Brett Hull or something
– Not so expensive for the Flyers 5 years later, they gave the Canadiens cash
b) Doug Riseborough
A player for the Canadiens, and a player and GM for the Flames. I thought this would be a sore one with the Flames, as he was their Rejean Houle (maybe they roomed together and devised the worst trades they could think of. Riseborough made Toronto and undid Calgary in that 10 player deal over the Xmas holidays. The deal was:
To Toronto: Doug Gilmour, Jamie Macoun, Rick Wamsley, Ric Nattress, Kent Manderville
To Calgary: Gary Leeman, Craig Berube, Michel Petit, Jeff Reese, Alexander Godynuk
A Calgary fan on a message board put it best when he said: "Risebrough ALMOST pulled off the impossible. Making a 10 player, five-for-five trade where the best player he got was the 6th-best player in the deal."
c) Doug Gilmour
One of the best players to don the colours of both teams. He was absolutely pivotal from what I can remember in getting the Flames that Cup in 1989 (along with Joe Mullen and Niewendyk) – it was his 11th goals and 22nd point in 22 games that won the Cup.
As if to compensate the Flames for the theft of Brett Hull, the Blues traded Gilmour to Calgary in a gift of a deal in 1988 (with Bozek again) for Mike Bullard in decline and a couple of other roster fillers.
d) Patrick Roy
We all know who he is. Funny how both Habs and Flames fan mentioned his demeanour.
e) Turku
Notably, the hometown and home club of both Saku Koivu and Mikka Kiprusoff. Also hometown of one-time Hab, and Mikka's older brother, Marko Kiprusoff.
Watching the game in repeat from last night, I really noticed Alex's style and presence. To be fair, I think it took a while for me to appreciate what he can do and how he would go about doing it. I was pretty close to writing a disparaging piece a while ago. But, to watch Tanguay all game is to see patience and quiet peppered with moments of skill and brilliance.
To watch Calgary for the first full game this season was to witness why he wouldn't fit in there. He is a Montreal type player, not a Sutter boy. Here's why.
He floats
See the word float in hockey and negative connotations come flooding to mind. But it shouldn't necessarily be so. In fact, I think that a lot of very well functioning 3-man offensive units can credit some success to having one floater (or lurker) if you prefer.
Tanguay is good at lurking. He seems to know where the puck might pop out and glides into that place. For some observers he looks lazy as Higgins battles for 10 seconds on the boards. Clearly, we can count Sutter and Keenan among those. But to others, the subtlety in his play can be exquisite.
He is dependent
It really is starting to sound a bit negative. I wouldn't go so far as to say he is parisitic, but like a pilot fish hanging around the great white, the relationship sometimes look less than mutual.
What I have seen with Tanguay so far though is that he starts out leeching the puck, but as time goes by and the line becomes familiar, he spreads it back or just plain creates big chances. So while he relies on others to do a lot of the heavy work, he can provide them with the touch and timing they would otherwise lack.
Players dependent on others need independent souls willing to take on luggage. The Canadiens have always had these generous types – Koivu and Kovalev, and now Lang. It does put some onus on a coach to do some thinking about where the dependents go. Clearly that is too much for some coaches...
He is laid back
Or so it seems from his interviews. Laid back is good when being interviewed (particularly in the hockey-media madhouse). I think laid back is good on the ice sometimes too. It's the calm that allows bank shots off goalies to work; to score without effort in shootouts (2 points from those already).
You don't want your on-ice leaders to be too laid back all the time, and you'd pick Iginla in a pinch over Tanguay. But Iginlas are few and far between and trading intensity and leadership by example all the time for scoring and playmaking is great if you can afford the luxury.
Add up all these qualities and it becomes clearer why a straight-ahead coach like Keenan couldn't cope and just wasn't a fan. Keenan and his GM seem to call upon energetic (almost hyperactive) physical play and don't seem to have time for much else. To build a team with that mentality, you need a whole lot of Iginlas, and no Tanguays. The Flames are built with sturdy sorts who energetically come at the opposition wherever they are on the ice. The Flames are coached to press, press, press. The strategy is valid, but it's not Tanguay's.
The Canadiens (of late) seem to be at least trying to model their behaviour after more patient sides, where puck control and possession is valued more than the perfect dump in. They try to create chaos among defenders not through orchestrating chaotic moves of their own, but by patiently waiting for it to happen.
Alex Tanguay just fits this scenario. His patience, control and slick and inconspicuous ways on the ice thrive when fed by similar players like Kovalev, Markov, Kostitsyn and Koivu. Mike Keenan might call it the trap:
"They have a lot of European hockey players on their hockey team, and that's how European hockey players play," Keenan said. "They play the trap and live off the counter."
All respect to the man gunning for Scotty Bowman's records (he's closest and most likely to get the most losses by an NHL coach – within 60 now – and never reach the wins, as he's nearly 600 back), but I think his catchall thinking is not only derogatory, but not very nuanced either. It is the transition without the trapping, the possession without the blue-line stand.
It wouldn't be the first time Keenan was wrong. We should all be glad that Tanguay was wrong for him, because he is starting to look very right for the rebirth of the firewagon brand.
Aside: 5 Canadiens/Flames links
Yesterday I asked Kent from Five Hole Fanatics and Tobalev from Lions in Winter about 5 names. I wanted to share with you some of my comments on the 5.
a) Rob Ramage
Rob was unique as a member of both the 1989 Calgary Flames and the 1993 Montreal Canadiens. From Kent's and Tobalev's responses, you can gather that Rob's career was on a different plane in 1989, though he still had a moustache in 93.
Rob was a good defenceman with the Flames, and a great one throughout his career. He also has plenty of interesting side notes:
– He was drafted first overall in 1979 ahead of 3 400+ goalscorers and Raymond Bourque
– He put the puck in his own net on Billy Smith's and any goaltender's first NHL goal
– He was an expensive pick-up for Calgary to shore up their D, costing them Steve Bozek and an out of favour youngster called Brett Hull or something
– Not so expensive for the Flyers 5 years later, they gave the Canadiens cash
b) Doug Riseborough
A player for the Canadiens, and a player and GM for the Flames. I thought this would be a sore one with the Flames, as he was their Rejean Houle (maybe they roomed together and devised the worst trades they could think of. Riseborough made Toronto and undid Calgary in that 10 player deal over the Xmas holidays. The deal was:
To Toronto: Doug Gilmour, Jamie Macoun, Rick Wamsley, Ric Nattress, Kent Manderville
To Calgary: Gary Leeman, Craig Berube, Michel Petit, Jeff Reese, Alexander Godynuk
A Calgary fan on a message board put it best when he said: "Risebrough ALMOST pulled off the impossible. Making a 10 player, five-for-five trade where the best player he got was the 6th-best player in the deal."
c) Doug Gilmour
One of the best players to don the colours of both teams. He was absolutely pivotal from what I can remember in getting the Flames that Cup in 1989 (along with Joe Mullen and Niewendyk) – it was his 11th goals and 22nd point in 22 games that won the Cup.
As if to compensate the Flames for the theft of Brett Hull, the Blues traded Gilmour to Calgary in a gift of a deal in 1988 (with Bozek again) for Mike Bullard in decline and a couple of other roster fillers.
d) Patrick Roy
We all know who he is. Funny how both Habs and Flames fan mentioned his demeanour.
e) Turku
Notably, the hometown and home club of both Saku Koivu and Mikka Kiprusoff. Also hometown of one-time Hab, and Mikka's older brother, Marko Kiprusoff.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Habs Flames
Guest Preview
Ahead of tonight's match-up with our once arch-rivals (well in my Panini sticker world they were, anyway) Calgary Flames, I spoke with Kent of the Five Hole Fanatics (member of The Score Sports Federation) about the game and some hockey stuff.
He asked me some questions of his own, the responses to which you can read (and agree/disagree with, if you want) at their blog.
Q1) We look at your team as foreign fans and think Iginla, Kiprusoff, Phaneuf... Can you tell us from a Flames perspective who the players to look for tonight will be?
Kent: The stars are the obvious ones, although the Flames have some support guys making waves this year as well. Keep an eye on Glencross, Moss, Bourque and Boyd (who returns from injury tonight). On the back-end, watch the contentious sophomore Mark Giordano.
Q2) By the same token, who are the players you as Flames key on when you think of a match up with the 2008-09 Canadiens?
Kent: When I think of the Canadiens this year, I worry about Koivu, Tanguay and Kovalev (on the PP). I also think you have one of the best defensemen in the league (Markov) and one of the best young goalies (Price).
Q3) We have an interesting history between our teams. Recent additions for the Habs have included two well-paid one-time Flames: Hamrlik and Tanguay. In a line, how do you feel about Tanguay?
Kent: I was a big supporter of Tanguay when he was in town. I think he has tendencies than can be annoying for the average fan (SHOOT THE PUCK ALEX!), but is a valuable even-strength producer.
Q4) Mats Sundin is stirring again. Do you want him on your team? Do you need him?
Kent: I'm sure everyone WANTS Sundin, because he's still a difference maker.
Sundin isn't an option for the Flames though. The club is right up against the cap and has centers coming out of every orifice (Boyd, Langkow, Lombardi, Primeau, Conroy). In short, there's no room cap-wise or on the roster for Mats in Calgary.
Q5) In Montreal, we like to think we are extra hard on our players. Obviously, we are only following in the best Canadian traditions (In a recent post Five Hole Fanatics had said):
Do you think Calgary is a harsh hockey market? How tough ae you on your stars? How long can a scoring slump go before criticism? Booing?
Kent: Expectations are fairly high in town, although I wouldn't call this market overly harsh. Most of the heroes are worshipped, although sometimes guys get run out of town on a rail if they have a rough go of it (*ahem* Tanguay). My recent criticism of Jarome Iginla probably isn't typical of the Calgary market, just to let you know.
Q6) The curse of EA Sports. How much do you want to burn all the EA NHL 09 boxes out there? What's up with Dion?
Kent: Meh. Dion has been good and bad so far. The guy is still just 23 years old and laboring under a new contract and lofty expectations. The coaching staff has gone on record recently to say that Phaneuf is simply trying to do too much every time he steps on the ice. I think he'll settle down as the year progresses.
Finally, I thought it would be fun to have a look at some players, people and places that mean something to either side. That's why I asked both Kent from Five Hole Fanatics and our own Tobalev to state whatever came to mind (in a word or two) when they read the following list (the answers are good):
Rob Ramage, Doug Riseborough, Doug Gilmour, Patrick Roy and Turku
a) Rob Ramage
Kent (Flames): Great defenseman
Tobalev (Habs): Moustache (and car crash)
b) Doug Riseborough
Kent (Flames): Gary Leeman
Tobalev (Habs): Bust
c) Doug Gilmour
Kent (Flames): Local hero
Tobalev (Habs): Hated Him then Loved him more than any other player before or since
d) Patrick Roy
Kent (Flames): Arrogant wind-bag
Tobalev (Habs): Cocky, Show-off (glove-hand), was on great teams, despite all that was a winner
e) Turku
Kent (Flames): Goaltending
Tobalev (Habs): Saku
He asked me some questions of his own, the responses to which you can read (and agree/disagree with, if you want) at their blog.
Q1) We look at your team as foreign fans and think Iginla, Kiprusoff, Phaneuf... Can you tell us from a Flames perspective who the players to look for tonight will be?
Kent: The stars are the obvious ones, although the Flames have some support guys making waves this year as well. Keep an eye on Glencross, Moss, Bourque and Boyd (who returns from injury tonight). On the back-end, watch the contentious sophomore Mark Giordano.
Q2) By the same token, who are the players you as Flames key on when you think of a match up with the 2008-09 Canadiens?
Kent: When I think of the Canadiens this year, I worry about Koivu, Tanguay and Kovalev (on the PP). I also think you have one of the best defensemen in the league (Markov) and one of the best young goalies (Price).
Q3) We have an interesting history between our teams. Recent additions for the Habs have included two well-paid one-time Flames: Hamrlik and Tanguay. In a line, how do you feel about Tanguay?
Kent: I was a big supporter of Tanguay when he was in town. I think he has tendencies than can be annoying for the average fan (SHOOT THE PUCK ALEX!), but is a valuable even-strength producer.
Q4) Mats Sundin is stirring again. Do you want him on your team? Do you need him?
Kent: I'm sure everyone WANTS Sundin, because he's still a difference maker.
Sundin isn't an option for the Flames though. The club is right up against the cap and has centers coming out of every orifice (Boyd, Langkow, Lombardi, Primeau, Conroy). In short, there's no room cap-wise or on the roster for Mats in Calgary.
Q5) In Montreal, we like to think we are extra hard on our players. Obviously, we are only following in the best Canadian traditions (In a recent post Five Hole Fanatics had said):
Iginla has more empty net goals (3) than even strength goals (2) through 25 games this year. Bourque, Glencross and Moss all have better ESP/60 rates - and a couple of them have faced tougher competition according to behind the net. That's not the difference maker we've come to know and love 'round these parts. Iginla has been beating up on the opposition for years at ES, but that dimension has been severely lacking through the first quarter of this season. Maybe he's injured, maybe he's not getting the bounces, maybe it's an issue of chemistry - whatever it is, I still assume that Iginla will get things going eventually. Sooner rather than later would be preferable though. As in, starting tonight.
Do you think Calgary is a harsh hockey market? How tough ae you on your stars? How long can a scoring slump go before criticism? Booing?
Kent: Expectations are fairly high in town, although I wouldn't call this market overly harsh. Most of the heroes are worshipped, although sometimes guys get run out of town on a rail if they have a rough go of it (*ahem* Tanguay). My recent criticism of Jarome Iginla probably isn't typical of the Calgary market, just to let you know.
Q6) The curse of EA Sports. How much do you want to burn all the EA NHL 09 boxes out there? What's up with Dion?
Kent: Meh. Dion has been good and bad so far. The guy is still just 23 years old and laboring under a new contract and lofty expectations. The coaching staff has gone on record recently to say that Phaneuf is simply trying to do too much every time he steps on the ice. I think he'll settle down as the year progresses.
Finally, I thought it would be fun to have a look at some players, people and places that mean something to either side. That's why I asked both Kent from Five Hole Fanatics and our own Tobalev to state whatever came to mind (in a word or two) when they read the following list (the answers are good):
Rob Ramage, Doug Riseborough, Doug Gilmour, Patrick Roy and Turku
a) Rob Ramage
Kent (Flames): Great defenseman
Tobalev (Habs): Moustache (and car crash)
b) Doug Riseborough
Kent (Flames): Gary Leeman
Tobalev (Habs): Bust
c) Doug Gilmour
Kent (Flames): Local hero
Tobalev (Habs): Hated Him then Loved him more than any other player before or since
d) Patrick Roy
Kent (Flames): Arrogant wind-bag
Tobalev (Habs): Cocky, Show-off (glove-hand), was on great teams, despite all that was a winner
e) Turku
Kent (Flames): Goaltending
Tobalev (Habs): Saku
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
The Elusive Power Forward
When was the first time we heard this term? Power forward? What does it mean?
I can vaguely remember my introduction to the concept of power forwarding around the time of Kevin Stevens. Kevin Stevens was a power forward – no other way to describe him. At that time in the NHL, one could throw around several names of forwards who one would put into the power bucket: Rick Tocchet, Cam Neely, Gary Roberts and an up-and-coming Keith Tkachuk were all the prototypes.
It seems that nowadays the lines are more blurred. Beyond Iginla, who is a productive power forward anymore?
There are big forwards. Are they power forwards? Oleg Kvasha wasn't, Nik Antropov isn't. No, power forward goes beyond size. As the name implies, the defining characteristic is power.
In a bit of lazy research for the piece (I never rely on Wikipedia in my day job), I came across this entry on the definition of power forward, at least as far as concerned editors and readers on the internet's encyclopedia are concerned. The definition is certainly worth a peek, but what interested me most was the ensuing list of current power forwards in the league:
* Dustin Penner, Edmonton Oilers
* Jarome Iginla, Calgary Flames
* Shane Doan, Phoenix Coyotes
* Brenden Morrow, Dallas Stars
* Keith Tkachuk, St. Louis Blues.
* Rick Nash, Columbus Blue Jackets
* Brendan Shanahan, NY Rangers
* Gary Roberts, Tampa Bay Lightning
* Tomas Holmstrom, Detroit Red Wings
* Mike Knuble, Philadelphia Flyers
* Johan Franzen, Detroit Red Wings
* Vincent Lecavalier, Tampa Bay Lightning
* Milan Lucic, Boston Bruins
Two things strike me as odd about this list:
1) It is very short
2) There are only 2 Europeans
This led me through a whole range of thoughts. The obvious knee-jerk reaction is to criticise the make-up of the list itself (In a departure from my usual MO, I decided not to take this route).
Next, I found myself thinking about the definition that would lead one to posting an exclusive list that at once contains league MVP-types like Iginla and Lecavalier with virtual nobodies Lucic and Penner (I guess i couldn't resist chipping in on that front after all).
Ultimately, that led to a very short, and extremely uninteresting post (IMHO). The final stage of questioning has led me to the line of thinking that the power forward notion itself is outdated and even obsolete. The interesting part, I suppose, here is the factors that have led to this change over the past few years.
The passing of the power forward
There is no doubt that there once were power forwards in the league. There is no doubt that players like those famous names at the top of this post still skate in the NHL, and that there will always be players like that. However, what I think sets apart the "power forwards" that remain in the league is their talent – that is to say, they can do more than add power. Lecavalier is an all-around talent, Iginla can skate and shoot extremely well, Shanahan is a smart player.
In the past, specifically in the 1990s, there were forwards who could neither skate, nor pass particularly well – players who were happy to hack at a puck all night to get some goals. Todd Bertuzzi springs to mind.
These players were propagated by need. The league was in a new generation of defensive focus, together with better goaltenders with equipment almost twice as big as before. For years, plan A to score goals was to put a big man in the goalie's line of sight and send in a low shot. More than this though, the power forward was required to overcome the unbelievable level of hooking and obstruction that was being allowed to pass for hockey.
With the temporary implementation of the rules of hockey from the time of the lock-out up until present day, the need for power forwards has diminished. As smaller players are no longer hooked and held back, they can begin to show their own merits in the league out-competing many a power forward for a job. Incidentally, the "power forwards", never mistaken for the fleet of foot, also lamented the crack-down on hooking, as they were largely no longer capable of making any meaningful contribution at the defensive end of the ice either.
In addition to the change in rules, there has also been a general change in ethic across the NHL. The league is trying its utmost to make games flow better. Gone are breaks at every face off for the big oafs to rest. Going are opportunities to fight and intimidate. With them even more reasons to choose to employ an otherwise inadequately skilled hockey player.
The rise of the star player
Simultaneous with the extinction of the power forward (at least those with a dearth of skill) has been the rise of the all-rounder, the multi-purpose player. This is the rise of the star player. After all those years of GMs repeating the mantra of picking the best player, it seems to have rubbed off on coaches (well some, anyway).
The star players are the forwards that can be deployed in any game situation. They are the names at the top of the team scoring list. And they are the ones at the top of the ice time in all scenarios.
When I watch my Habs in important scoring situations I see Koivu, Kovalev and Higgins or Plekanec on the ice. If it's getting hairy at the end of the third and we need to hang on, strangely, its the same guys. What makes it strange is not that it is counter intuitive or anything, because playing the best players makes loads of sense to me on the level of intuition; but that it is something I am not used to after living through the trap years, the obstruction generation.
The rise of the star player is something that excites me. I think people around the league are generally excited about this too – that is unless your GM is still behind the times and signing the Bertuzzis of the league... Why wouldn't I be excited? Why wouldn't I want to watch Kovalev kill a penalty instead of Kostopoulos?
But how did this change come about?
To be perfectly honest, I am not entirely sure. If I were to venture a guess, I would say it has something to do with the quality of the young talent coming through into the league. Players like Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin just should never be on the bench. I think coaches with established players of similar ilk (your Kovalevs, Alfredssons, Zetterbergs) have been affirmed in thinking what they might have always thought about playing the best guys.
But, this of course has always happened when strong generations came through the league. That's why I think the other factor in play here is the general trend towards youth in the league. It's simple, I guess. Young legs can be asked to do more. What's more the old guys are being asked to compete with young legs and so are becoming fitter themselves (Chelios?)
A combination of talent and fitness doesn't sound like a mind-blowing concept, but the fact is that in this league it was, not even that long ago. The move to youth and as a consequence fitness shows huge promise for the game, in my opinion. And as time goes by and skilled players can no longer be shown up on fitness, then we should hopefully see more stars like Ovechkin and Zetterberg running amok.
What of the coveted power forward for the Habs?
As always I come home to the Habs in these thought journeys. When it comes to this elusive power forward we are always on the verge of signing, trading for, concocting in a lab in the Saguenay, I think the time has passed.
That is not to say I don't think we'll have big players – we will. However, I just don't think they'll be able to make the league, much less the resurgent Glorieux on the basis of size alone.
I think some of the prospects may well have been prototypical power forwards in the past, but ultimately if Latendresse and Pacioretty don't skate in the NHL, the Canadiens won't build a strategy around their stationary masses.
Similarly, I think the time has come to stop worrying about the statures of our top two centres. Basically they should be judged on the sum of what they can bring to a hockey game (if I were being my normal difficult self, I might also add that both Koivu and Plekanec have more power on the puck than most players 6 inches closer to the rafters anyway).
As with anything else, I will gladly take thee size as a bonus if everything else is equal though. Give me a bigger Saku, I won't complain. But, I'd still rather have Saku Koivu than his brother, even if he is smaller, because he is strong and creative on the puck despite what his biometrics would suggest, but he is also faster and has a better handle on how the game flows.
Anyway, the summer rolls on, the power forward continues to elude us, and I, for one, couldn't care less about that...
I can vaguely remember my introduction to the concept of power forwarding around the time of Kevin Stevens. Kevin Stevens was a power forward – no other way to describe him. At that time in the NHL, one could throw around several names of forwards who one would put into the power bucket: Rick Tocchet, Cam Neely, Gary Roberts and an up-and-coming Keith Tkachuk were all the prototypes.
It seems that nowadays the lines are more blurred. Beyond Iginla, who is a productive power forward anymore?
There are big forwards. Are they power forwards? Oleg Kvasha wasn't, Nik Antropov isn't. No, power forward goes beyond size. As the name implies, the defining characteristic is power.
In a bit of lazy research for the piece (I never rely on Wikipedia in my day job), I came across this entry on the definition of power forward, at least as far as concerned editors and readers on the internet's encyclopedia are concerned. The definition is certainly worth a peek, but what interested me most was the ensuing list of current power forwards in the league:
* Dustin Penner, Edmonton Oilers
* Jarome Iginla, Calgary Flames
* Shane Doan, Phoenix Coyotes
* Brenden Morrow, Dallas Stars
* Keith Tkachuk, St. Louis Blues.
* Rick Nash, Columbus Blue Jackets
* Brendan Shanahan, NY Rangers
* Gary Roberts, Tampa Bay Lightning
* Tomas Holmstrom, Detroit Red Wings
* Mike Knuble, Philadelphia Flyers
* Johan Franzen, Detroit Red Wings
* Vincent Lecavalier, Tampa Bay Lightning
* Milan Lucic, Boston Bruins
Two things strike me as odd about this list:
1) It is very short
2) There are only 2 Europeans
This led me through a whole range of thoughts. The obvious knee-jerk reaction is to criticise the make-up of the list itself (In a departure from my usual MO, I decided not to take this route).
Next, I found myself thinking about the definition that would lead one to posting an exclusive list that at once contains league MVP-types like Iginla and Lecavalier with virtual nobodies Lucic and Penner (I guess i couldn't resist chipping in on that front after all).
Ultimately, that led to a very short, and extremely uninteresting post (IMHO). The final stage of questioning has led me to the line of thinking that the power forward notion itself is outdated and even obsolete. The interesting part, I suppose, here is the factors that have led to this change over the past few years.
The passing of the power forward
There is no doubt that there once were power forwards in the league. There is no doubt that players like those famous names at the top of this post still skate in the NHL, and that there will always be players like that. However, what I think sets apart the "power forwards" that remain in the league is their talent – that is to say, they can do more than add power. Lecavalier is an all-around talent, Iginla can skate and shoot extremely well, Shanahan is a smart player.
In the past, specifically in the 1990s, there were forwards who could neither skate, nor pass particularly well – players who were happy to hack at a puck all night to get some goals. Todd Bertuzzi springs to mind.
These players were propagated by need. The league was in a new generation of defensive focus, together with better goaltenders with equipment almost twice as big as before. For years, plan A to score goals was to put a big man in the goalie's line of sight and send in a low shot. More than this though, the power forward was required to overcome the unbelievable level of hooking and obstruction that was being allowed to pass for hockey.
With the temporary implementation of the rules of hockey from the time of the lock-out up until present day, the need for power forwards has diminished. As smaller players are no longer hooked and held back, they can begin to show their own merits in the league out-competing many a power forward for a job. Incidentally, the "power forwards", never mistaken for the fleet of foot, also lamented the crack-down on hooking, as they were largely no longer capable of making any meaningful contribution at the defensive end of the ice either.
In addition to the change in rules, there has also been a general change in ethic across the NHL. The league is trying its utmost to make games flow better. Gone are breaks at every face off for the big oafs to rest. Going are opportunities to fight and intimidate. With them even more reasons to choose to employ an otherwise inadequately skilled hockey player.
The rise of the star player
Simultaneous with the extinction of the power forward (at least those with a dearth of skill) has been the rise of the all-rounder, the multi-purpose player. This is the rise of the star player. After all those years of GMs repeating the mantra of picking the best player, it seems to have rubbed off on coaches (well some, anyway).
The star players are the forwards that can be deployed in any game situation. They are the names at the top of the team scoring list. And they are the ones at the top of the ice time in all scenarios.
When I watch my Habs in important scoring situations I see Koivu, Kovalev and Higgins or Plekanec on the ice. If it's getting hairy at the end of the third and we need to hang on, strangely, its the same guys. What makes it strange is not that it is counter intuitive or anything, because playing the best players makes loads of sense to me on the level of intuition; but that it is something I am not used to after living through the trap years, the obstruction generation.
The rise of the star player is something that excites me. I think people around the league are generally excited about this too – that is unless your GM is still behind the times and signing the Bertuzzis of the league... Why wouldn't I be excited? Why wouldn't I want to watch Kovalev kill a penalty instead of Kostopoulos?
But how did this change come about?
To be perfectly honest, I am not entirely sure. If I were to venture a guess, I would say it has something to do with the quality of the young talent coming through into the league. Players like Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin just should never be on the bench. I think coaches with established players of similar ilk (your Kovalevs, Alfredssons, Zetterbergs) have been affirmed in thinking what they might have always thought about playing the best guys.
But, this of course has always happened when strong generations came through the league. That's why I think the other factor in play here is the general trend towards youth in the league. It's simple, I guess. Young legs can be asked to do more. What's more the old guys are being asked to compete with young legs and so are becoming fitter themselves (Chelios?)
A combination of talent and fitness doesn't sound like a mind-blowing concept, but the fact is that in this league it was, not even that long ago. The move to youth and as a consequence fitness shows huge promise for the game, in my opinion. And as time goes by and skilled players can no longer be shown up on fitness, then we should hopefully see more stars like Ovechkin and Zetterberg running amok.
What of the coveted power forward for the Habs?
As always I come home to the Habs in these thought journeys. When it comes to this elusive power forward we are always on the verge of signing, trading for, concocting in a lab in the Saguenay, I think the time has passed.
That is not to say I don't think we'll have big players – we will. However, I just don't think they'll be able to make the league, much less the resurgent Glorieux on the basis of size alone.
I think some of the prospects may well have been prototypical power forwards in the past, but ultimately if Latendresse and Pacioretty don't skate in the NHL, the Canadiens won't build a strategy around their stationary masses.
Similarly, I think the time has come to stop worrying about the statures of our top two centres. Basically they should be judged on the sum of what they can bring to a hockey game (if I were being my normal difficult self, I might also add that both Koivu and Plekanec have more power on the puck than most players 6 inches closer to the rafters anyway).
As with anything else, I will gladly take thee size as a bonus if everything else is equal though. Give me a bigger Saku, I won't complain. But, I'd still rather have Saku Koivu than his brother, even if he is smaller, because he is strong and creative on the puck despite what his biometrics would suggest, but he is also faster and has a better handle on how the game flows.
Anyway, the summer rolls on, the power forward continues to elude us, and I, for one, couldn't care less about that...
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Sporting News: Habs Players Snubbed
Thanks to Mike Boone for keeping up his posts and fishing this one out:
How funny that the year the players put it together and Gainey does little more than watch his previous work come to fruition, it is Gainey that is honoured and the players, namely Markov, that are snubbed.
I am excited for Washington that they are up and coming and made the playoffs for the first time in a while, but I don't think they necessarily merit 33% of the places on the all-star team for the season. One can hardly argue with the selections of Brodeur, Lidstrom, Ovechkin, Iginla and Malkin from this past season, but Mike Green should be up for discussion.
Questionable choice
Mike Green is definitely an up-and-comer, but I would hesitate to lay this honour on him just yet.
For on thing, the Capitals were not a good defensive team. While Lidstrom led defencemen in the NHL for scoring, he also led his team to the Jennings trophy. Green, while scoring 18 goals and 56 points led his team to a tied 17th best GA record (tied with Phoenix, no less).
For another thing, the Capitals play in what is hands down the worst division in the NHL. They played 32 games against division rivals, all of whom missed the playoffs. Most of their success came against these teams, as well.
Finally, I thought everyone was in agreement that Washington Capitals = Alexander Ovechkin. At least, that's why a player from a seventh place team is the heavy Hart trophy favourite, right? I would suggest that Mike Green without Ovechkin is probably a lesser player than all the alternatives (who incidentally, all play without Ovechkin).
My 6th All-Star
Looking through the league I see at least three legitimate candidates who would supersede Green in my ranking:
1) Dion Phaneuf
Already a Norris trophy candidate. Plays well at both ends. And, unlike Green, his team's seventh place finish came in what is probably the toughest division in the NHL.
2) Zdeno Chara
We saw what kind of a defender he was in our series. And, having seen what else Boston has to offer, it wouldn't be a stretch to say Chara led a team pretty much bereft of talent (certainly Ovechkin-calibre talent) to the same number of points as Washington in a much tougher division.
3) Andrei Markov
Outpointed Green. Led his team to first overall in the East. Choreographed the best PP in the league. Played on a defense that was significantly stingier in much tougher divisional games. What's more, he did it all without Ovechkin (with all respect to Kovalev).
I select Andrei Markov for the team instead of Green. He not only has better credentials than Green to make it, but the Canadiens deserve to be recognised for the season they had (and Markov would be a good representative) rather than the Capitals being given a double gong for pipping the flailing Canes at the post.
As if to prove the point, in the last head-to-head, Markov's Russia prevailed. Let's hope the next magazine gets its selections right...
The Sporting News has named Bob Gainey National Hockey League Executive of the Year.
Gainey received 12 of 28 votes cast by league executives. Detroit vice-president/GM Ken Holland was second with six votes.
Sporting News Coach of the Year Mike Babcock got six of 18 votes cast by his peers, while Guy Carbonneau picked up five votes to finish second.
Alex Ovechkin was named Player of the Year, picking up 250 of a possible 287 votes in a poll of players conducted for the magazine. Evgeni Malkin finished second with 18 votes.
The Sporting News named Patrick Kane Rookie of the Year. The magazine's All-Star team includes Martin Brodeur, Mike Green, Nicklas Lidstrom, Ovechkin, Malkin and Jarome Iginla.
How funny that the year the players put it together and Gainey does little more than watch his previous work come to fruition, it is Gainey that is honoured and the players, namely Markov, that are snubbed.
I am excited for Washington that they are up and coming and made the playoffs for the first time in a while, but I don't think they necessarily merit 33% of the places on the all-star team for the season. One can hardly argue with the selections of Brodeur, Lidstrom, Ovechkin, Iginla and Malkin from this past season, but Mike Green should be up for discussion.
Questionable choice
Mike Green is definitely an up-and-comer, but I would hesitate to lay this honour on him just yet.
For on thing, the Capitals were not a good defensive team. While Lidstrom led defencemen in the NHL for scoring, he also led his team to the Jennings trophy. Green, while scoring 18 goals and 56 points led his team to a tied 17th best GA record (tied with Phoenix, no less).
For another thing, the Capitals play in what is hands down the worst division in the NHL. They played 32 games against division rivals, all of whom missed the playoffs. Most of their success came against these teams, as well.
Finally, I thought everyone was in agreement that Washington Capitals = Alexander Ovechkin. At least, that's why a player from a seventh place team is the heavy Hart trophy favourite, right? I would suggest that Mike Green without Ovechkin is probably a lesser player than all the alternatives (who incidentally, all play without Ovechkin).
My 6th All-Star
Looking through the league I see at least three legitimate candidates who would supersede Green in my ranking:
1) Dion Phaneuf
Already a Norris trophy candidate. Plays well at both ends. And, unlike Green, his team's seventh place finish came in what is probably the toughest division in the NHL.
2) Zdeno Chara
We saw what kind of a defender he was in our series. And, having seen what else Boston has to offer, it wouldn't be a stretch to say Chara led a team pretty much bereft of talent (certainly Ovechkin-calibre talent) to the same number of points as Washington in a much tougher division.
3) Andrei Markov
Outpointed Green. Led his team to first overall in the East. Choreographed the best PP in the league. Played on a defense that was significantly stingier in much tougher divisional games. What's more, he did it all without Ovechkin (with all respect to Kovalev).
I select Andrei Markov for the team instead of Green. He not only has better credentials than Green to make it, but the Canadiens deserve to be recognised for the season they had (and Markov would be a good representative) rather than the Capitals being given a double gong for pipping the flailing Canes at the post.
As if to prove the point, in the last head-to-head, Markov's Russia prevailed. Let's hope the next magazine gets its selections right...
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Force of Nature Kovalev for Hart Consideration – Gretzky
Last week, the peerless Wayne Gretzky took the opportunity of a "once-in-a-lifetime" match up against the Canadiens to heap praise on the team and some of its key players. The player whose virtues he seemed to be extolling the most was one-time teammate Alexei Kovalev (now called Alex).
What Gretzky actually said via translation into French in La Presse and the back into English on Eyes on the Prize:
As for completeness, Gretzky is only saying what Habs fans have been saying all season, and what some astute hockey observers have been saying for longer than that.
But the Hart trophy?
Now, i think Robert L. was clear in his post, and I will reiterate, Gretzky only said he would get votes, not that he would win. However, all this talk about Kovalev for MVP got me thinking about how good his chances really were:
1) How does Kovalev stack up against the league in this regard?
I think in general he stacks up quite well. But there are many elements to consider in the decision for the Hart trophy. The way I like to think of it is how would that team be if the player in question is removed from the lineup.
In that regard, we can only speculate. We know from the past that when we lose Markov we are worse, when Brisebois is gone we are better and if we lose Koivu in the playoffs, we are done for. Some would argue that we missed Kovalev for most of last season. But I don't agree with that.
Looking around the league though, there are certain players who seem to carry their teams even more than Alex Kovalev does. One could name Alexander Ovechkin and Martin Brodeur as the obvious candidates. Other candidates based on this year's play might include Iginla, Lidstrom, Niedermayr (based on the turnaround he caused, though he should be counted out for sitting so long), Nabokov, Sundin, Thomas and even Malkin (this year). You could even make arguments for Lecavalier and Kovalchuk, but their teams couldn't be too much worse than they are right now.
Hart trophy voters also take the positioning of the team into account when they vote, hence Wayne Gretzky's reasoning for Kovalev. If the Devils, Penguins or Sens squeak past the Habs, their Hart candidates would earn just as many votes.
If the Habs do top the division say, would that make a Canadiens player a serious contender for the Hart trophy? Would Kovalev even be the number one choice from the Habs?
Habs MVP
All this MVP talk led me naturally to thoughts about our own team's most valuable element. I should mention, that, once again, Eyes on the Prize spurred my thoughts on matters with an article on the Habs most indispensable element.
Robert's article was well thought out and as comprehensive as ever, but disappointingly (for me at least) was written as an extended question with no conclusion on the part of the author. On prompting, Robert even then seemed reluctant to commit, but opted for Bob Gainey as his choice.
A good choice to be sure. It would be hard to argue against Gainey at this point, as he assembled this team and many of the players are his draft picks and wards.
How about players then? Who is the MVP from amongst the ones who are actually responsible for fighting for and holding onto the points that are making everyone so positive about Gainey and his team right now?
Well, to be honest I only see two realistic candidates for most valuable player for 2007-2008: Mr. Kovalev and his countryman Andrei Markov.
The readers of the same blog believe that Kovalev is the one, garnering 76 votes. Next among players comes Johnny-come-lately Carey Price, the choice of 46 fans (possibly with short attention span). Markov comes next, but only in combination with Mike Komisarek (45 votes).
You can see where I'm going here, I think the populous is a bit off here. The race is close, but Andrei Markov is my choice for Habs MVP by a nose. Here's my thinking:
1) Kovalev has made Plekanec into a first-rate point producer, but Andrei Markov has made Mike Komisarek into an award nominee and top tier defenseman (this year he's been passing on the final lessons which have been in session for a couple of years).
2) While Kovalev is the shooter and the foil of the league's number one PP, Markov's steady play at the back and sharp vision and passing is the lynch pin that holds the unit together.
3) Kovalev has been on fire lately, but Markov was on fire for just as long early in the season, even when the Habs goalscoring was being called into question. Prior to Xmas, he was heralded in the same way Kovalev is now – top vote getter among East Dmen,
4) Markov plays the most minutes on the team and does more dirty work than Alex in general. he still found time to rack up a gaudy 54 points already.
5) The Habs goalies have looked great most times this year, seemingly no matter who it is. What's consistent about them? How about the defenders in front of them. Sure we let up a lot of shots, but many times Markov has been one of the tandem making sure those shots come from the oppositions lesser lights.
6) If you look at wins following losses or losing streaks, Andrei Markov is by far the most prominently featured Habs name. I would call these games crunch games, must-wins or "statement games" as Mike Boone put it for last night. They are important.
While Kovalev has been consistently great in the offensive end win or lose, Markov has been good and also able to find extra in the crunch games. In 21 of these types of wins, Markov has been player of the game 3 times and among the top performers of the night 16 times.
Kovalev is no slouch with 3 player of the game honours himself, but took a back seat in slightly more of those games too, making the top performers an only slightly less impressive 11 times.
At the end of the day, both players have played enormous parts in helping this team take the steps it has this year, both as players and mentors. The point of choosing here is an academic issue. So since you won't be held to account for any of this:
Who is your MVP so far?
Are any of you the Carey Price crew? Would Huet get some residual votes as well?
As always, look to 96 points and the playoffs where that would lead. Go Habs Go.
What Gretzky actually said via translation into French in La Presse and the back into English on Eyes on the Prize:
"Kovalev is one of the most complete players I've ever seen. He's having an exceptional season and should be considered for the Hart because of the success he's had."
As for completeness, Gretzky is only saying what Habs fans have been saying all season, and what some astute hockey observers have been saying for longer than that.
But the Hart trophy?
Now, i think Robert L. was clear in his post, and I will reiterate, Gretzky only said he would get votes, not that he would win. However, all this talk about Kovalev for MVP got me thinking about how good his chances really were:
1) How does Kovalev stack up against the league in this regard?
I think in general he stacks up quite well. But there are many elements to consider in the decision for the Hart trophy. The way I like to think of it is how would that team be if the player in question is removed from the lineup.
In that regard, we can only speculate. We know from the past that when we lose Markov we are worse, when Brisebois is gone we are better and if we lose Koivu in the playoffs, we are done for. Some would argue that we missed Kovalev for most of last season. But I don't agree with that.
Looking around the league though, there are certain players who seem to carry their teams even more than Alex Kovalev does. One could name Alexander Ovechkin and Martin Brodeur as the obvious candidates. Other candidates based on this year's play might include Iginla, Lidstrom, Niedermayr (based on the turnaround he caused, though he should be counted out for sitting so long), Nabokov, Sundin, Thomas and even Malkin (this year). You could even make arguments for Lecavalier and Kovalchuk, but their teams couldn't be too much worse than they are right now.
Hart trophy voters also take the positioning of the team into account when they vote, hence Wayne Gretzky's reasoning for Kovalev. If the Devils, Penguins or Sens squeak past the Habs, their Hart candidates would earn just as many votes.
If the Habs do top the division say, would that make a Canadiens player a serious contender for the Hart trophy? Would Kovalev even be the number one choice from the Habs?
Habs MVP
All this MVP talk led me naturally to thoughts about our own team's most valuable element. I should mention, that, once again, Eyes on the Prize spurred my thoughts on matters with an article on the Habs most indispensable element.
Robert's article was well thought out and as comprehensive as ever, but disappointingly (for me at least) was written as an extended question with no conclusion on the part of the author. On prompting, Robert even then seemed reluctant to commit, but opted for Bob Gainey as his choice.
A good choice to be sure. It would be hard to argue against Gainey at this point, as he assembled this team and many of the players are his draft picks and wards.
How about players then? Who is the MVP from amongst the ones who are actually responsible for fighting for and holding onto the points that are making everyone so positive about Gainey and his team right now?
Well, to be honest I only see two realistic candidates for most valuable player for 2007-2008: Mr. Kovalev and his countryman Andrei Markov.
The readers of the same blog believe that Kovalev is the one, garnering 76 votes. Next among players comes Johnny-come-lately Carey Price, the choice of 46 fans (possibly with short attention span). Markov comes next, but only in combination with Mike Komisarek (45 votes).
You can see where I'm going here, I think the populous is a bit off here. The race is close, but Andrei Markov is my choice for Habs MVP by a nose. Here's my thinking:
1) Kovalev has made Plekanec into a first-rate point producer, but Andrei Markov has made Mike Komisarek into an award nominee and top tier defenseman (this year he's been passing on the final lessons which have been in session for a couple of years).
2) While Kovalev is the shooter and the foil of the league's number one PP, Markov's steady play at the back and sharp vision and passing is the lynch pin that holds the unit together.
3) Kovalev has been on fire lately, but Markov was on fire for just as long early in the season, even when the Habs goalscoring was being called into question. Prior to Xmas, he was heralded in the same way Kovalev is now – top vote getter among East Dmen,
4) Markov plays the most minutes on the team and does more dirty work than Alex in general. he still found time to rack up a gaudy 54 points already.
5) The Habs goalies have looked great most times this year, seemingly no matter who it is. What's consistent about them? How about the defenders in front of them. Sure we let up a lot of shots, but many times Markov has been one of the tandem making sure those shots come from the oppositions lesser lights.
6) If you look at wins following losses or losing streaks, Andrei Markov is by far the most prominently featured Habs name. I would call these games crunch games, must-wins or "statement games" as Mike Boone put it for last night. They are important.
While Kovalev has been consistently great in the offensive end win or lose, Markov has been good and also able to find extra in the crunch games. In 21 of these types of wins, Markov has been player of the game 3 times and among the top performers of the night 16 times.
Kovalev is no slouch with 3 player of the game honours himself, but took a back seat in slightly more of those games too, making the top performers an only slightly less impressive 11 times.
At the end of the day, both players have played enormous parts in helping this team take the steps it has this year, both as players and mentors. The point of choosing here is an academic issue. So since you won't be held to account for any of this:
Who is your MVP so far?
Are any of you the Carey Price crew? Would Huet get some residual votes as well?
As always, look to 96 points and the playoffs where that would lead. Go Habs Go.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Changing the ethic
After reading up a bit on the Canadiens last draft, I can see where the latest picks fit in the scheme of things.
I'll be up front about it, I would have picked Esposito if I had the chance, but that was when I was overlooking the overarching theme going through the current Canadiens team.
What I believe Gainey and Timmins have been moving to do since they arrived is to build a more mature group of players. A group who have wide experiences and are adaptable thanks to both their experience and maturity. This is where drafting the Americans comes into it – in my opinion. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but American hockey players give the best interviews. They can articulate, and thank heavens, think of original things to say. Higgins, a Yale man, is our current embodiment of a mature youngster, some of the recent picks may come and show the same qualities.
I don't think Americans have a monopoly on these qualities, not by any means. I think Chipchura for example has those qualities among our prospects. Also, players like "Gretzky, Niedermayr, Yzerman, Lemieux, Brodeur and Iginla all have (had) these same qualities. The thing with the Americans is that when you are taking a bet on them (as in the draft), their route to the NHL lends itself to building more mature players. For one thing they have to stay in school – balancing studies with hockey. Many junior players finish at high school, if they get that far.
Why maturity counts in championships is leadership. Everyone touts the big leaders, the overt and outspoken guys. This was Souray last year from what I hear. But there are also deputies. These guys are critical, they lead by example. theymay voice an opinion in a disagreement, but will be mature enough to focus their energy in the right direction (helping the team win) at game time. This would be Saku Koivu in his younger days (he's gone furthere than that now), and Higgins and Plekanec now. These guys earn respect from their play and can get through to the ones who have lost touch with the leader or coach. They help hold the team together – something vital to a championship (unless the Habs plan on winning all their games and everyone stays happy all the time...)
I also think a lot of emphasis is placed on the interview. We can all see how Esposito, Cherepanov and McDonagh play on the ice, but how they answer questions in that important interview is not information us armchair enthusiasts are privy to. I liken it to the interviews I have done in hiring. CVs can look good, even tests, but an interview can change the whole impression of a person. In a draft, the team is looking for someone that could potentially be in the fold for the long haul, so personality and perceived work ethic, etc are very important. For the Canadiens, I think they also want players to represent them well, while playing well of course.
McDonagh, Mr. Hockey Minnesota, may or may not be that mature now. I have no idea. But the Canadiens minders seem to like the maturing process that can be gained from a few years at a decent hockey playing university like Wisconsin. Same goes for Pacioretty at Michigan. Esposito would either be entrusted to the Habs, Hamilton or Patrick Roy again in Quebec. I get the feeling the Habs would like the maturing to be someone else's responsibility.
I believe the maturity of the top prospects is a big reason why the Habs seem to have soured a bit on the QMJHL. It is no longer producing the classy forwards it once did in Beliveau, Lafleur, Lafontaine and Savard. Nowadays it seems a lot of the bigger stars are brats, at least for a few years. Ribeiro was, Theodore to some extent (especially in Ribeiro's company), Lecavalier was for a long time. Even Sid the Kid has his moments, though on most nights he puts in an honourable effort to be very mature. Gems like Simon Gagne, who seems very mature, come few and far between. Hopefully Latendresse can follow that path. he already seems mature.
I do, however, believe that the Canadiens would be well served (and indeed very eager themselves) to add a French Canadian star with the maturity and qualities they are trying to encourage. Lecavalier seems to have grown up now, and would be a fine addition. I mentioned Gagne, and he would be quite an acquisition too. Briere would be fine, but as long as Koivu is here just does not fit the need. The list isn't endless, but is long enough that they might be able to grab a player who fits both the new ethic of the team and the local star ticket.
Wouldn't it be nice to just buy the league with the Quebec Aces and bring in Beliveau? The perfect fit and with Art Ross talent too. Those were the days. As we're stuck with the draft, at least it seems our guys have a plan.
I'll be up front about it, I would have picked Esposito if I had the chance, but that was when I was overlooking the overarching theme going through the current Canadiens team.
What I believe Gainey and Timmins have been moving to do since they arrived is to build a more mature group of players. A group who have wide experiences and are adaptable thanks to both their experience and maturity. This is where drafting the Americans comes into it – in my opinion. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but American hockey players give the best interviews. They can articulate, and thank heavens, think of original things to say. Higgins, a Yale man, is our current embodiment of a mature youngster, some of the recent picks may come and show the same qualities.
I don't think Americans have a monopoly on these qualities, not by any means. I think Chipchura for example has those qualities among our prospects. Also, players like "Gretzky, Niedermayr, Yzerman, Lemieux, Brodeur and Iginla all have (had) these same qualities. The thing with the Americans is that when you are taking a bet on them (as in the draft), their route to the NHL lends itself to building more mature players. For one thing they have to stay in school – balancing studies with hockey. Many junior players finish at high school, if they get that far.
Why maturity counts in championships is leadership. Everyone touts the big leaders, the overt and outspoken guys. This was Souray last year from what I hear. But there are also deputies. These guys are critical, they lead by example. theymay voice an opinion in a disagreement, but will be mature enough to focus their energy in the right direction (helping the team win) at game time. This would be Saku Koivu in his younger days (he's gone furthere than that now), and Higgins and Plekanec now. These guys earn respect from their play and can get through to the ones who have lost touch with the leader or coach. They help hold the team together – something vital to a championship (unless the Habs plan on winning all their games and everyone stays happy all the time...)
I also think a lot of emphasis is placed on the interview. We can all see how Esposito, Cherepanov and McDonagh play on the ice, but how they answer questions in that important interview is not information us armchair enthusiasts are privy to. I liken it to the interviews I have done in hiring. CVs can look good, even tests, but an interview can change the whole impression of a person. In a draft, the team is looking for someone that could potentially be in the fold for the long haul, so personality and perceived work ethic, etc are very important. For the Canadiens, I think they also want players to represent them well, while playing well of course.
McDonagh, Mr. Hockey Minnesota, may or may not be that mature now. I have no idea. But the Canadiens minders seem to like the maturing process that can be gained from a few years at a decent hockey playing university like Wisconsin. Same goes for Pacioretty at Michigan. Esposito would either be entrusted to the Habs, Hamilton or Patrick Roy again in Quebec. I get the feeling the Habs would like the maturing to be someone else's responsibility.
I believe the maturity of the top prospects is a big reason why the Habs seem to have soured a bit on the QMJHL. It is no longer producing the classy forwards it once did in Beliveau, Lafleur, Lafontaine and Savard. Nowadays it seems a lot of the bigger stars are brats, at least for a few years. Ribeiro was, Theodore to some extent (especially in Ribeiro's company), Lecavalier was for a long time. Even Sid the Kid has his moments, though on most nights he puts in an honourable effort to be very mature. Gems like Simon Gagne, who seems very mature, come few and far between. Hopefully Latendresse can follow that path. he already seems mature.
I do, however, believe that the Canadiens would be well served (and indeed very eager themselves) to add a French Canadian star with the maturity and qualities they are trying to encourage. Lecavalier seems to have grown up now, and would be a fine addition. I mentioned Gagne, and he would be quite an acquisition too. Briere would be fine, but as long as Koivu is here just does not fit the need. The list isn't endless, but is long enough that they might be able to grab a player who fits both the new ethic of the team and the local star ticket.
Wouldn't it be nice to just buy the league with the Quebec Aces and bring in Beliveau? The perfect fit and with Art Ross talent too. Those were the days. As we're stuck with the draft, at least it seems our guys have a plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)